We all know the BBC’s corporate view of the Great Satan America, but I think this is going beyond rhetoric.
“Politicians reacted in disbelief to the revelation that for over two hours yesterday, the BBC News website carried a request for people in Iraq to report on troop movements. The request was removed from the website after it sparked furious protests that the corporation was endangering the lives of British servicemen and women.
But according to accounts last night, a story on a major operation by US and Iraqi troops against al-Qa’eda somewhere north of Baghdad contained an extraordinary request for information about the movement of troops. Last night the BBC confirmed the wording of the request was: “Are you in Iraq? Have you seen any troop movements? If you have any information you would like to share with the BBC, you can do so using the form below.”
The BBC confirmed last night that this form of words had appeared on the website from “late morning” until early afternoon.”
The request was more likely to endanger the lives of US and Iraqi forces, being appended to this piece on the Diyala province offensive north of Baghdad.
Thanks to the glories of Revisionista, we can see that the request for troop information was there from revision 3 at 09.30 GMT up to revision 10 at 13.40 GMT – more than four hours.
The squaddies at ARRSE aren’t best pleased.
“Did you realise the BBC are now helping insurgents in northern Iraq with their intel ??”
I do hope if the BBC are going to request this sort of info that all their staff are security cleared. One wouldn’t like to think of such information falling into the wrong hands. Alternatively, could they try a radical new departure and request information on the movements of “militants” and “insurgents” ? And what would they say if Al-Jazeera asked their viewers to report on the movements of BBC staff in Gaza, Iraq or Afghanistan ?
Hat-tips to Max, Heron and David in the comments (via Tim Blair).
UPDATE – I think this is what’s called disingenuous.
“However, yesterday we used the phrase “have you seen any troop movements” in this request for information. The Telegraph and some others wrongly interpreted this as an attempt on our part to seek out military detail.”
What on earth could give that impression ? How could anyone think that asking about troop movements is an attempt to seek out military detail ?
“We phrased it badly, and as soon as we realised what we had done – a couple of hours – we removed the form.”
Four hours and 10 minutes according to Revisionista. Is Vicky Taylor not even capable of putting the corporate hand up honestly over the timing, is Revisionista wrong, or has she been inaccurately briefed ? Alas, I can’t ask her, because I’m banned from commenting – at least that’s how I translate “you are not allowed to comment”.
And off topic, but kudos to Nick Reynolds for his continuing ‘mission to explain’ and David Gregory for his contributions to an interesting discussion on the reporting of climate change in the comments to this post.
Bullshit Detective
If I was wrong then you would be able to come up with an argument to give, and explain what was incorrect about what I wrote. I can only assume then that you are, in fact, bullshitting. See, if you actually use logic this detection of bullshit is not hard. Even you might be able to do it one day.
Hi. My name is Eugene Gershin. I’d like to welcome you to Obadiah Shoher’s blog, Samson Blinded: A Machiavellian Perspective on the Middle East Conflict.
Obadiah is a pen name of a politician. He writes extremely controversial articles about Israel, the Middle East politics, and terrorism.
Obadiah advocates political rationalism instead of moralizing. He is economic liberal and political conservative.
Google refused advertising our site and Amazon deleted reviews of Obadiah’s book. Nevertheless, Obadiah’s is the largest Jewish personal blog, read by more than 100,000 people monthly. 210,000 people from 81 countries downloaded Obadiah’s book. The blog was voted the best overall in People’s Choice: Jewish and Israeli blogs Awards, received Webby Honoree and other awards.
Please help us spread Obadiah’s message, and mention the blog in one of your posts, or link to us. We would greatly appreciate your comments at http://www.samsonblinded.org/blog
Best wishes,
Eugene Gershin
Jewrusalem.net • Israeli Uncensored News
@ Max
“…a sure sign that they are stupid.”
Sad really. Americans are getting a steady diet of Europe’s hatred of all things American. As a matter of fact the most reporting on Europe that our media finds fit to print is to tell us over and over again how much Europe hates us. At the moment it is falling on deaf ears, but it will eventually take its toll.
I would guess that Americans already know that Europe is neither friend nor ally, but most would also have real trouble actually defining our relationship. I would liken it to visiting relatives who you really can’t stand the sight of, but you smile and talk about old times and family ties when you are actually wishing there was no relationship at all and you didn’t have keep up the pretense.
Wow, just wow
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6764903.stm
No one need read any further than the first comment on this thread by Untraviolets! What the hell is the purpose of Biased BBC if this vicious British-hating “Corporation” is continually allowed to campaign against America,Israel, and worst of all against us right here in the UK?
Infection, the purpose of Biased BBC, as I see it, is to join others in spreading the message of what the BBC has become far and wide so that fewer and fewer people will be duped by the constant spewing of BBC propaganda and, in this case, active BBC support for terror disguised as a “Bad phrase.”
Narratives, narratives…..
On the Today programme Bowen was banging on AGAIN about the occupation being the cause of the trouble in the Palestinian Territories.
A pity he is wrong, as judged by the Palestinian people themselves:
“The greatest threat to Palestinians today is infighting and lack of law and order in the eyes of 56% followed by poverty in the eyes of 21%, Israeli occupation (12%) and international sanctions and boycott (10%).”
http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2007/p24epressrelease.html
What’s the betting that these figures don’t see the light of day in BBC land?
Infection:
What the hell is the purpose of Biased BBC if this vicious British-hating “Corporation” is continually allowed to campaign against America,Israel, and worst of all against us right here in the UK?
Don’t worry. It doesn’t.
Don’t worry. It doesn’t.
hillhunt | 22.06.07 – 9:55 am |
Oh yes it does.
Hillhunt: back at his desk, all primed for another day’s reasoned debate.
@Cassander, Gary Powell.
I think it has become pretty obvious that HillHunt is a paid PR stooge from the BBC. He will not go away unless the site owners ban him, in which case he will return with a different ID. No one can guarantee that the other commenters will always ignore him – its not a moderated site – and ignoring him would just allow him to publish pro-BBC propaganda at will. As you have seen, he is a busy bee and can quite easily flood the site with suc propaganda if he pleases.
I suggest that those that wish to engage with him do so. But I have thought about this and I have a little advice:
1] The BBC seldom tells outright lies. Argue with HilHunt about a BBC lie and you are likely to be caught out. BBC journalists don’t want to be the next Gilligan. Assume that “lies” are more likely to be simple errors.
2] Bias is not about lies. It is about emphasising one truth and omitting or de-emphasising another. Biased journalists are scared of the truth, which is why they don’t report it. Publishing legitimate stories here that have been strangely omitted by the BBC is the best way to expose bias.
3] Call a spade a spade. HillHunt wants to pass himself off as an ordinary member of the public. He knows a site like this might be visited by as many as 250,000 individuals. Most don’t comment. If they take a casual glance at the comments they might perceive HillHunt as joe public. We know he is almost certainly BBC. We should refer to him as HillHunt (BBC) when replying to him, even if he doesn’t. Casual readers will quickly get the message.
4] Avoid ad hominems aimed at HillHunt (unless he has left himself wide open to one that will help to discredit him). He is an employee of the BBC just doing his job and probably has no emotional attachment to what he is saying. You are not that likely to incite him to rage by ad hominems – just expose yourself to a counter attack.
5] HillHunt is employed to hold the BBC party-line. Therefore his comments are as biased as the reports that spawned them. To the casual reader his comments actually undermine the BBC position as effectively as the BBC bias itself. The BBC probably hasn’t clicked onto this because they don’t realise that Guardian politics is a minority interest.
6] Don’t let him control the way the argument develops. His favourite tactic is to respond to the claim “This report is biased” with “Where is the lie? The report is all true”. Bias is not about lies. It is usually about omissions. Don’t even respond to claims a report is true – focus on the OPINIONS expressed and the different approaches taken by other news media. If HillHunt spots a genuine error in your argument – let it go. Don’t try to wriggle out from under it. Move on to something else.
7] Don’t box yourself into a corner. Too often people are making far-out claims that are difficult to substantiate. HillHunt is being paid to troll this site – he has the time to do research. In fact he seems to take 2 hours in each working day preparing himself to attack this site! Instead of saying “That’s a damn lie!” try “Are you sure that’s true?”. This question acts as a challenge to HillHunt who is then forced to prove his position by revealing his own research. He goes away and does all the work. Often he ends up in a weak position in doing so – forced to dig up BBC reports that are years old, or links to information that exposes other weaknesses in his arguments.
8] Bear in mind that the quality of BBC reporting has deteriorated substantially over the last 15 years or so. Asking for troop movements is probably less a question of bias and more a question of rank stupidity. Describe it as stupidity. Let others decide for themselves the motivation behind it. Similarly, stupid reporters are often manipulated by ther subject who have been working on media manipulation for years rather than biased as individuals. Forcing the BBC to improve the quality of their reporting to ensure more fact and less opinion will remove the bias very effectively. Incompetent reporting is easy to detect and to demonstrate – and very effective in exposing latent bias. But stick to describing it as incompetence. Let the readers decide if it is also bias.
Well, those are some of my ideas for what they are worth. Maybe others have better ideas or other opinions.
@HillHunt (BBC): You’re early today!
Abandon ship!:
On the Today programme Bowen was banging on AGAIN about the occupation being the cause of the trouble in the Palestinian Territories.
A pity he is wrong, as judged by the Palestinian people themselves:
Ah, but the Palestinian people were being asked about threat, not cause, as the relevant paragraph from the poll tells us…
The greatest threat to Palestinians today is infighting and lack of law and order in the eyes of 56% followed by poverty in the eyes of 21%, Israeli occupation (12%) and international sanctions and boycott (10%)
Biased BBC: Stastitcs. Stastisstic. Sttattiscics. Stasitics. Stasitics.
Figures.
Are our friend.
.
Yawn
Ryan:
5] HillHunt is employed to hold the BBC party-line.
Really?
Don’t think the BBC would pay (or let anyone volunteer) to rubbish HYS and citizen-journalism prompts, as I did just the other day.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/4110071824814403930/#361227
Nor agree with Paxman on global warming, as I did over the weekend…
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/4068507505364292634/#360678
Nor agree with Emily Bell on the subject of BBC’s allowing its news to be suborned into promoting BBC programmes over the merits of rival broadcasters…
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/760953733203267066/#359434
But if they want to send me some cash for this pro bono work, I’d be happy to accept it, pending Williams’s settlement of the trillion-pound debt he incurred yesterday over the BBC’s non-existent pro-Islamic bias.
Hillhunt: Happy just to be here.
Abandon Ship!:
Yawn
Take it you concede that asking people about threat is entirely different to asking about causation, then?
And that the predictable rant against Bowen was based on nowt….
Ryan,
you are quite right and I fully support your points. When dealing with a professional troll, remember what its aims are:
(1) to enrage the usual posters, so that
(a) they take their eyes off the ball and start attacking the troll (who, of course, isn’t going to be upset by this – on the contrary, only too pleased); and
(b) in their rage, make less well judged comments which the troll can then revert to ad nauseam as “evidence” the posters don’t know what they are talking about
and
(2) by turning the discussion to an exchange of invective, make the site itself seem less relevant and/or worth visiting for causal browsers.
IMO, the best way of dealing with trolls is to ignore them. If you must deal with them, then bear in mind that
(i) they are difficult to deal with – in all good tales, it is only the third and youngest brother that manages to outwit the troll, after it has already eaten the two elder ones; and
(ii) with reference to a newer set of tales, those of Terry Pratchett, trolls are not carbon-based lifeforms like you and me, but silicon-based and therefore do not react to debate, argument or insult in the same way as we do.
Best wishes for good hunting… 😉
Hillhunt,
Since the others that post here in support of the BBC openly acknowledge their employment and/or direct links to the BBC (i.e. Reith, Gregory, Reynolds) and you do not I have the following important question.
But first realise I ask it because I do acknowledge the huge hours you devote to this site posting morning, noon and night and on numerous occasions to considerable detail.
Is it that…
a. You really are BBC employed and have been less than honest in your previous denials, this would appear the most likely, but I list the other possiblities below.
b. You are a full time student, who aparently doesn’t actually study that much.
c. You are unemployed, not actually really unemployed in the strictest sense as you seem employed full time posting here. Perhaps you see this as your stepping stone to working for the BBC.
d. You are self employed, apparently at the moment researching a new book or such like on internet blogs, but you are so bound up you have lost your way.
e. You have the most understanding and easy going employer I have heard of, outside Birmingham airport security, who lets you spend the majority of your time posting here and researching rather than your actual job you are paid for. If this is the case, preserving your anonymity of course, perhaps you could enlighten us as to who this extremely generous employer is and we can all apply to join them.
Take it you concede that asking people about threat is entirely different to asking about causation, then?
Implying, what, that it was the dirty jews that caused it by giving the palestinians exactly what they wanted in Gaza?
That Israel is at fault because the palestinian government isn’t able to celebrate an election victory without executing the other side?
That jews are to blame because the palestinians are too stupid or too ‘traumatised’ to make use of infrastructure that was specifically left behind for them to give them a chance to kick-start their economy?
The palestinians are blameless. Israel is the cause of all the threats they face.
At least that’s the Hamas narrative.
Narratives are bunk. They’re a shield people use against the truth. They say ‘oh that’s your narrative’, your story, your fucking lies against theirs. They say that all narratives have equal weight, but then they don’t even apply that little relativistic dictum because Israel is never right. So when a reasonably secular governing body is displaced by mass-murdering thugs who go on to cement their victory by killing the new opposition, it must all be Israel’s fault for not being there to keep things secure. Or something.
Why can’t you accept that Hamas are simply evil? They aren’t freedom fighters. They aren’t a resistance, or insurgents. They’re evil. They kill their own people in order to make a point. They blow up internet cafes, destroy music, murder their own in cold blood and yet all you can do is hint and finagle that there must be some other cause. The jew. Hamas says it, so it must be true, right? Israel must be the cause of all their problems, right?
Or are you going to deny that now?
Am I the only one whose feeling uncomfortable with the amount of free publicity the BBC is giving to Glastonbury?
The festival is a commercial opperation run for profit. The publicity given by the BBC would cost other corporations a fortune.
The bands will all boost their incomes through increased album sales/appearence fees.
The organisers/bands left-wing “counter-culture” views will be held up as jewels of wisdom that Sparkle In The Rain (now THAT was a good album), whilst they laugh all the way to the tax-exile bank.
Isn’t the BBC showing the same bias towards Glastonbury that it showed for the “make poverty history” campaign that it got done for this week?
Tom
Spot on.
I’ve found a photo of hillhunt (BBC)!
http://thumbsnap.com/v/EXkWJRr4.jpg
How to promote Taliban Propaganda the BBC way.
Point 1
Use Civilians, Airstrikes and killed in the headline. (Use of the word Children is a bonus) as the Taliban don’t have an air arm the reader will automatically presume that NATO is on a bombing spree.
Point 2
Use eyewitnesses in which to inform a BBC correspondent of the huge death toll(Err Just who are these unnamed BBC Correspondents are they simply Taliban members who write up BBC stories?) Relate how they witnessed children and women dying in which to get the reader to automatically presume that NATO is on a bombing spree.
Point 3
Back up eye witness story by substantiating account with a regional police chief. (Note that account is void if a NATO spokesman’s informs the media of a successful airstrike against a terrorist group. Then the article will have a disclaimer stating that those claims cannot be verified)
Point 4
Always finish on a negative in which to promote the issue that UN troops are unwanted in Afghanistan and that the Taliban re the rightful rulers there.
Example;
“The south of the country has this year seen the worst violence since the Taleban were ousted from power in 2001 by US-led troops.
How to promote Taliban Propaganda the BBC way.
How to promote Taliban Propaganda the BBC way.
Point 1
Use Civilians, Airstrikes and killed in the headline. (Use of the word Children is a bonus) as the Taliban don’t have an air arm the reader will automatically presume that NATO is on a bombing spree.
Point 2
Use eyewitnesses in which to inform a BBC correspondent of the huge death toll(Err Just who are these unnamed BBC Correspondents are they simply Taliban members who write up BBC stories?) Relate how they witnessed children and women dying in which to get the reader to automatically presume that NATO is on a bombing spree.
Point 3
Back up eye witness story by substantiating account with a regional police chief. (Note that account is void if a NATO spokesman informs the media of a successful airstrike against a terrorist group. Then the article will have a disclaimer stating that those claims cannot be verified) in which to garner the opinion of the reader that NATO are on a bombing spree.
Point 4
Always finish on a negative in which to promote the issue that UN troops are unwanted in Afghanistan and that the Taliban are the rightful rulers there.
Example;
“The south of the country has this year seen the worst violence since the Taleban were ousted from power in 2001 by US-led troops.
How to promote Taliban Propaganda the BBC way.
The key thing is that Glastonbury is not sponsored by big companies. This, along with the general left-liberal anti-establishment views of those at the event, makes the event beyond reproach in the eyes of the BBC.
From the event website:
http://www.glastonburyfestivals.co.uk/worthy_causes.aspx
“The major causes supported by Glastonbury Festival are Oxfam, Greenpeace and Wateraid”
Also they feature “i count”, dedicated to stopping climate change:
http://www.icount.org.uk/
This site informs us that “As President Bush tries to limit international action on climate change, the US is in the grips of its worst summer drought since the 1930s.”
In addition, the festival site links to “a guide to world peace”, which lo and behold is the website of Dan Pleasch, who I think is another “trenchant” critic of Israel:
http://www.danplesch.net/
Finally, there are shouts for “Make poverty history” and “Fairtrade”.
All in all from the Beeboid point of view, a jolly worthy event to promote at licence fee-payer’s expense.
Biodegradable
Brilliant!
Pounce
I noticed on the Today programme a couple of days ago that following the John Simpson report from Afghanistan about the Taliban, John Humphreys felt the need to add afterwards that the vast majority of Afghans hated the Taliban and did not want them back.
Wonder why he needed to add that “context” to the Simpson report?
The reason was that after listening to the Simpson report, you would have thought that the Taliban was some sort of political/military freedom movement formed in response to the invasion by the Great Satan, and that the Taliban had to resort to killing Afghans to drive out the infidel invader.
Glastonbury was warmly praised on “Today” this morning by the funny-as-a-burst-boil “comedian” Marcus Brigstocke, so I now no longer have to give it any thought at all.
The beer at Glastonbury’s sold by a “trades union co-operative”. £3.20 a pint. “The working class can kiss my ass/I’ve got the foreman’s job at last.”
Ryan | 22.06.07 – 10:14 am
a site like this might be visited by as many as 250,000 individuals. Most don’t comment.
Well, I suppose a site like this might be visited by little green men from Mars.
But I’d be surprised if as many as 2,500 visited this site on an average day.
Perhaps the site-owners would tell us how many unique visitors accessed this site on, say, Tuesday this week?
“Am I the only one whose feeling uncomfortable with the amount of free publicity the BBC is giving to Glastonbury?”
Surely the BBC is paying Glastonbury for the broadcast rights as part of its remit to provide a bit of cutting edge culture to the masses? Irrespective of the wanky politics of most of those involved Glastonbury is unarguably a showcase for the best of contemporary British rock music and (unlike Live Aid) I don’t remember the Beeb dwelling on the half arsed politics swirling around the event.
JR you are one to talk – referring to BBC ratings in terms of ‘reach’.
Yes, a BBC signal ‘reaches’ my rooftop antenna – that doesn’t mean I watch any BBC output.
The BBC, Its love for the Taliban and half a story
‘Afghans killed’ in air strikes
Some 25 civilians have died during aerial bombing by foreign forces in the southern Afghan province of Helmand, local residents and senior police say.
……………
The accounts were backed by the district police chief, and the provincial police chief, Mohammed Husain Andiwal. Mr Andiwal said Taleban fighters attacked Nato forces first. “Last night, around 01:30, Nato forces bombed the village… as a result of the bombing 25 people were killed. They included women, three babies between 6 to 10 months one, one mullah of a mosque and other elders.” Mr Andiwal alleged that foreign forces had launched air strikes on the village without consulting with their Afghan counterparts.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6229422.stm
And here is how Sky news reports on what provincial police chief, Mohammed Husain Andiwal had to say on the matter;
“Provincial police chief Mohammad Hussein Andiwal said the Taliban attacked police and used civilian houses for cover in Gereshk district. He said the militants used at least two civilian compounds for cover during the clashes.”Nato was targeting the areas where the fire was coming from … and two compounds were completely destroyed, and the families living in those compounds were killed,” Mr Andiwal said.”
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1271802,00.html?f=rss
AFP reports;
“Provincial police chief Colonel Mohammad Hassan told AFP that the bombing came after Taliban fighters attacked an ISAF convoy from among houses and gardens in a village.About 20 Taliban were also reported killed in the strike shortly after midnight, he said.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070622/ts_afp/afghanistanunrestnat0
The Times;
“Lieutenant-Colonel Mike Smith, a NATO spokesman, said: “We are concerned about reports that some civilians may have lost their lives during this attack.
“However, it must be noted that it was insurgents who initiated this attack, and in choosing to conduct such attacks in this location and at the time, the risk to civilians was probably deliberate.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article1971509.ece
I wonder why the BBC kind of left out of the story just really what that copper had to say.
The BBC, Its love for the Taliban and half a story
“I don’t remember the Beeb dwelling on the half arsed politics swirling around the event.”
That’s why Stephen Sackur had a whole Hardtalk programme dedicated to Eavis the other night
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/hardtalk/6766839.stm
That’s the Michael Eavis who is quoted thus on the Dan Pleasch website, linked to from Glastonbury:
“Dan has been a mainstay of the festival from the early years, his book offers a practical strategy to defeat the madness coming from corporate America” – Michael Eavis”
But I’d be surprised if as many as 2,500 visited this site on an average day.
Perhaps the site-owners would tell us how many unique visitors accessed this site on, say, Tuesday this week?
John Reith | 22.06.07 – 11:54 am
I’m not a site-owner but all you need to do is click the “Sitemeter” link on the sidebar.
http://www.sitemeter.com/?a=stats&s=s11biasedbbc
VISITS
Total 1,845,195
Average Per Day 1,685
Average Visit Length 5:04
Last Hour 81
Today 402
This Week 11,794
PAGE VIEWS
Total 2,675,467
Average Per Day 2,556
Average Per Visit 1.5
Last Hour 122
Today 568
This Week 17,890
B-BBC: Not to be sneezed at.
the pinko champagne is on us | 22.06.07 – 12:01 pm
That’s not what ‘reach’ means.
‘Average Weekly reach’ is the percentage of the total population watching a particular network at least once per week. Daily reach….at least once per day.
For an individual programme – reach is the measure of the number of people who actually watched it.
BaggieJ:
None of the above. And for the umpteenth time I don’t have any connection with the BBC.
Now, what are the self dignity prospects about which you wrote yesterday?
And what does…
If the BBC is so much better than the other broadcasters round the world as you claim perhaps it could start making an example of all the lazy ploughman’s lunches across the disciplines
…actually mean?
As we’ve all contributed to the cost of your education, it would be enlightening to know…
.
“Am I the only one whose feeling uncomfortable with the amount of free publicity the BBC is giving to Glastonbury?”
I agree with Cockney in the main. But the “Here We Go Again” adverts which stereotype and make fun of the local inhabitants of SW England speak for themselves. Typical BBC double standard.
Baggie:
Don’t feed the troll
Biodegradable | 22.06.07 – 12:08 pm
Thanks for the sitemeter info.
Do you know whether the 1,685 ‘visits’ logged were by unique users or whether, say, each of hillhunts 23 posting-visits would have counted as a fresh one?
Cockney:
“Surely the BBC is paying Glastonbury for the broadcast rights as part of its remit to provide a bit of cutting edge culture to the masses?”
Except BBC News 24 has just given Greenpeace 5 minutes of the microphone, in a smiley aren’t you wonderful interview about how “green” the festival is.
150,000 living in tents what else to you expect?
The BBC has the rights to the FA cup and Gastonbury – fair enough.
The difference is we don’t get to here the political views of any of the organisers, sponsers, managers or players in the FA cup/ other sportiung events.
Why the f is Greenpeace given the Microphone, without ANY counter views? Just because of a pop concert/TV rights deal?
eg there are “solor showers” being used there. Bet you £ to a penny that they don’t mention that the f’ing solor power doesn’t f’ing work in the rain.
Should there be a seperate thread on this bias from the mud this w/e?
The bias will be endless.
The BBC has just been severley critsised for the unquestioning publicity given to the make poverty history campaign.
Here they are doing the same thing within a f’ing week.
pounce:
I wonder why the BBC kind of left out of the story just really what that copper had to say.
Depends what the overall balance of the story is, doesn’t it?
pounce says that the BBC did not include a direct suggestion that the Taleban had caused civilian deaths by using their buildings as cover.
The BBC story actually includes (twice) an even stronger allegation against the Taleban… that the guerrillas might have directly killed the civilians themselves. The source of this is ISAF itself.
pounce’s wilful misinterpretation of BBC reporting is one of the best reasons why the average Joe (or Jo) can safely walk away from this blog unconvinced.
One of his friends ought to have a word.
Do you know whether the 1,685 ‘visits’ logged were by unique users or whether, say, each of hillhunts 23 posting-visits would have counted as a fresh one?
John Reith | 22.06.07 – 12:18 pm |
I don’t know for sure but I assume the ‘visits’ are indeed unique, hence the number of them is lower than the ‘page views’.
Remember they are stats for the biased-bbc.blogspot.com page only and do not include these HaloScan.com comments pages.
JR: have you discovered what ‘electronic engineering’ means yet? Or did they not offer that at Eton & Trinity?
by the way
Greenpeace isn’t a Charity – because it needs to be political/pressure group it doesn’t qualify under charity rules.
Greenpeace is a pressure group that the BBC is sympathetic to.
A TV rights deal SHOULD NOT be used as an excuse to give publicity to the views of a political pressure group.
Certainly not by a poll-tax funded organisation. This Bias is a disgrace and the BBC should be ashamed by the fact that they are doing exactly what they were critised for just 3 days ago.
The BBC and Not The NIne O/Clock News.
U.N.’s Ban faults rights council over Israel
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) – U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon joined Western nations on Wednesday in criticizing the world body’s own Human Rights Council for picking on Israel as part of an agreement on its working rules.
The European Union, Canada and the United States had already attacked the singling-out of Israel’s role in the occupied Palestinian territories for continued special investigation, under the deal reached in Geneva on Monday.
A U.N. statement said: “The Secretary-General is disappointed at the council’s decision to single out only one specific regional item given the range and scope of allegations of human rights violations throughout the world.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSN2030978520070621
I wonder why this story from yesterday hasn’t made the BBC headlines. They give us this;
“Louis Walsh to return as judge on X Factor, months after leaving the TV show.” as news but not the actual news.
I wonder why?
The BBC and Not The NIne O/Clock News.
Please please start a “bias from the mud” thread
the pinko champagne is on us | 22.06.07 – 12:01 pm
sorry, I made a mistake in my last reply. Reach is not expressed as a percentage of anything. It’s a hard number. So if Panorama is reported to have a reach of 4m – that’s how many people watch it.
Is the BBC starting to revise its bias becasue of this board in which to try and gain the upperhand.
http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/50064/diff/0/1
and discredit the many people who post here.
Lastly what time frame does News Sniffer use. Seeing as when i posted my BBC Bias spot the part about where the Taliban may have shot civilians just wasn’t on line.
tom atkins:
Please please start a “bias from the mud” thread
Great.
It’ll make you look like even grumpier than the old killjoys that you already appear to be…
Biased BBC: Who are The Beetles? When did Bruce Springsteam? How would one use a Walk-Man?
“pounce’s wilful misinterpretation of BBC reporting is one of the best reasons why the average Joe (or Jo) can safely walk away from this blog unconvinced…” said Hillunt.
Indeed; they can, but they don’t.
pants:
Lastly what time frame does News Sniffer use. Seeing as when i posted my BBC Bias spot the part about where the Taliban may have shot civilians just wasn’t on line.
Stories are developed as new info becomes available.
You look for conspiracies.
The rest of us understand that that is how news is delivered…